All right, this has been troubling me for a while now. What's the source for this? The only report I've been able to find on this is a DoL statement from 1995. Is there anything to suggest that this is still true?

There's no source for it because it's inaccurate, at least as referring to college and professional school admissions. You may be interested in this thread where this claim was discussed and/or thrown around without support.

If you think just 40 years ago women were not out working in the "real world" or in law firms, or doctors offices. They were homemakers and maybe teachers or nurses if they were outside of the home.And then when women began working they were not (and still are not always) given equal compensation. They were frequently punished for trying to be successful and raise a family and usually to the detriment of their careers.Women were not always admitted to the top law schools and grad schools. They were not considered to need education that was not about cooking, cleaning or diaper changing.So there is something to be said for including women as under represented minorities. In the late 1960's and 1970's more educational institutions realized the disparity between women in school and started making special provisions to include women in their programs. Today the number of women is almost equal that of men. But in certain career fields such as medicine, science, engineering, math, and yes...law--Women are still an under represented group.It didn't happen overnight but it took a large group in the majority to realize the vast difference in educational opportunities for women and decide to make provisions to fix it.

It may seem like crap now because there are so many women in school, but the point has validity.

All right, this has been troubling me for a while now. What's the source for this? The only report I've been able to find on this is a DoL statement from 1995. Is there anything to suggest that this is still true?

There's no source for it because it's inaccurate, at least as referring to college and professional school admissions. You may be interested in this thread where this claim was discussed and/or thrown around without support.

If you think just 40 years ago women were not out working in the "real world" or in law firms, or doctors offices. They were homemakers and maybe teachers or nurses if they were outside of the home.And then when women began working they were not (and still are not always) given equal compensation. They were frequently punished for trying to be successful and raise a family and usually to the detriment of their careers.Women were not always admitted to the top law schools and grad schools. They were not considered to need education that was not about cooking, cleaning or diaper changing.So there is something to be said for including women as under represented minorities. In the late 1960's and 1970's more educational institutions realized the disparity between women in school and started making special provisions to include women in their programs. Today the number of women is almost equal that of men. But in certain career fields such as medicine, science, engineering, math, and yes...law--Women are still an under represented group.It didn't happen overnight but it took a large group in the majority to realize the vast difference in educational opportunities for women and decide to make provisions to fix it.

It may seem like crap now because there are so many women in school, but the point has validity.

Uh, the fact that women are underrepresented in certain fields and have only really entered the workforce in the last generation or two does not change the fact that it is inaccurate to state that white women are currently the main beneficiaries of AA in the context of college and professional school admissions. Full stop. Discussing whether and why women have or have not achieved equality with men, and whether or not it would be valid for them to continue to benefit from admissions preferences does not change the fact that they currently do not (mostly because in terms of ADMISSION to college and law school women are no longer falling behind - this is less true in the context of science and engineering graduate schools, but presumably that's not what we are talking about here. That doesn't mean there are not other inequalities on down the road, as you point out). Whether or not something is desirable is, in fact, a distinct question from whether or not it is true.

Logged

Quote from: Earthbound SNES

Get a sense of humor, Susan B. Anthony!

Quote from: dashrashi

I'm going to cut a female dog. With a knife with a brown handle, natch.

A lot of paragraphs, but didn't see anything actually buttressing the only point that I really opposed. And you said women can use their beauty and feminine wiles or whatever to get ahead. Eyeroll.

I'm conflicted on AA, but crap, misleading arguments don't help the debate on either side.

Well, surely you wouldn't be elitist enough to begrudge me an op-ed from ANY school, would you? lol. And you made many points. My eye is on the 8-ball, which goes to say, more towards proving my point than responding to yours. You raise good points, esp. when it comes to providing evidence, which is where we stand. I have had little time to research the stats. And I will confess, I, like everyone on this site, have become so used to citing a particular stat that I have never thought to look up the actual data behind it. Just like the people on this site who keep regurgitating the LSAC statistics that "correlate" LSAT scores with first-year law performance.

Everyone who scores well believes and hides behind it, but has never seen the actual data. They've seen statistical reports, not data. So...forgive me for this transgression, but I believe the evidence is out there for two reasons: 1) it makes sense, based on the socioecomic progress of White women comparison to that of Blacks, and 2) too many authorities have citied it (unlike the case with the LSAT, which is cited only by those parties whose self-interested motives are in keeping with its institution).

Do you only post when you're high?

Let me get this str8...I have to be high to admit a fault (albeit a trendy one)?

You don't have it straight. There you go, reading poo into it that isn't there. I just asked if you only post high.

The whole AA has benefited women thing is a silly and distracting argument.

AA is under fire at college and professional schools, an arena where it no longer affects women (if it ever did, but that is not the issue). The supreme court decided that AA had merit in these places when Sandra Day cast her deciding vote.

The question is whether URMs still need the assistance to overcome past prejudices and oppression. I believe they do, and the supreme court's deadline is ridiculous. Do women still need AA? No, studies frequently point out today that women now outnumber men in post-secondary education.

So, srsly, stfu about AA for women, it detracts from the real debate about AA.